R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's appeal which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Kesar Singh plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against Shri Sat Pal Singh and Uttam Singh sons of Shri Sadhu Singh praying that the defendants be restrained permanently from interfering in any manner in his peaceful possession over the land comprised in khewat No. 13 Khatauni No. 81, Khasra Rectangle No. 10, Killa Nos. 16, 17, Rect. No. 22, Killa. Nos. 4, 5, 1, 7, 9, 14/1 measuring 34 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Janial Tehsil Pathankot and the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent in the trial Court was that he is in possession of the suit land as tenant since long. He was earlier cultivating about 105 kanals of land jointly with Rur Singh and Sadhu Singh but subsequently, the land was partitioned and the suit land fell to his share and since the date of partition, he is cultivating the same in the capacity of a tenant. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the said land but they have threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. Hence the suit. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants who contested the same and denied the allegations. According to the respondents they are in possession of 11 kanals 2 marlas of land out of this khasra number as tenants. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as tenant ? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injurious prayed for? 3. Relief.
(3.) BOTH the parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings the trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The reasons for decreeing the suit are contained in para Nos. 6 and 7 of the judgment of the trial Court, which are reproduced as under : "6. To prove his tenancy over the suit land, the plaintiff has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. He himself in his statement as P.W.1 has reiterated all the facts as alleged in the plaint and has testified that he is in possession of the suit as tenant. He has no doubt also stated that out of the entire suit measuring 34 kanals 5 marlas, 18 kanals of land has been allotted to him by the Govt., but no allotment order has been produced by him and as such this part of his testimony cannot be accepted. But his testimony regarding his possession over the suit and as tenant finds full corroboration from the revenue record. Admittedly, originally he was in joint cultivation of the suit and some other land total measuring 105 kanals as tenant along with Rur Singh and Sahdu Singh as is evident from copies of jamabandi Exhibits P-1 and P-2 for the years 1962-63 and 1967-68. But subsequently, as admitted even by the defendant himself in his statement as D.W.4 the entire holding under tenancy was partitioned amongst the co-tenants in equal shares. The perusal of copy of jamabandi Exhibit P-4 for the year 1972-73 shows that the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiff as he alone is recorded in possession of the same as tenant. Undisputedly, presumption of truth attaches to the jamabandi entries under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Act and as such entires in this jamabandi have to be presumed to be correct. These very entries are carried forward and incorporated in copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.P-5 for the crops Kharif 1974 to Rabi 1978. Thus possession of plaintiff over the suit land as tenant stands amply proved. 7. The plea taken up by the defendants that out of the entire suit land 34 kanals 5 marlas, they are in possession of 11 kanals 2 marlas and have constructed hut over the same cannot at all be accepted for want of any cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate the same. The evidence of Puran Singh (D.W.1) and Shankar singh D.W. 30 that 11 kanals of land out of the suit land is in possession of the defendants and they have planted orchard over it besides constructing a hut, is very vague and general and does not inspire any confidence. They have not disclosed the year in which the defendants planted orchard and constructed hut over the land. Kuldip singh (D.W.2) who is son and attorney of his father Kharak Singh owner of the suit land has no doubt stated that defendants are in possession of 11 kanals land out of the suit land as tenants, but his testimony cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. He has admitted that originally plaintiff along with Sadhu Singh and Kesar Singh had been cultivating the entire holding measuring 105 kanals as tenant under his father. He has also admitted that after partition of the holding, the plaintiff is in possession of the land which fell to his share. No document has been produced by the defendants evidencing their possession over 11 kanals of land out of the entire suit land. The hut alleged to have been constructed by them in the land falls in Khasra No. 22/4 min which is recorded in possession of plaintiff alone, in copy of jamabandi Ex.P4 for the year 1972-73 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.P-5. Therefore, their possession over any part of the suit land as tenants does not at all stand established. In view of the discussion made above, issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff." ;